For my 60th anniversary Jubilee Tourney, 126 studies were submitted, by 81
composers from 29 countries. The average quality was high; over three quarters
at least had something fresh, witty or deep - and many were simply beautiful.
At times, when I went over all those vastly different
concoctions, I felt like a vaudeville impresario, judging hopeful fire-eaters,
tap dancers, knife throwers, stand-up comedians, human cannonballs, unicyclists,
all showing their acts, hoping to be in the show. Often, I was truly moved by
the dazzling and crazy acts they had devised, their belief in them, the endless
practising that had obviously gone into them - but mainly, I was just awed.
Chess is inexhaustable, and the study composers' imagination and ingenuity is
inexhaustable. I am grateful to them.
I also want to thank tourney director René Olthof and
fellow jury member Harold van der Heijden. For some twenty years, I have known
both as kindred souls; lovers of the unusual, and especially the beautiful in
chess.
Only when I saw the original manuscripts, some with
solutions in hardly legible handwritten cyrillic; in enigmatic notations;
without variations or with an almost sickening plenitude of them, I knew how
much work René had done - just to get all the studies uniformly and anonymously
to Harold and me.
Harold, with his vast knowledge, his famous database and
his eagle's eye as an analyst, hopefully kept us from awarding studies that are
not entirely new or correct - but his artistic appreciation was what really
mattered.
That endgame composition is a form of art, and therefore
a matter of taste, was rather shockingly illustrated by the differences in our
initial selections - when we showed each other our first top-9's, not a single
study was in both of them. It was great fun, and very enlightening, to explain
to each other, in lengthy e-mails, the merits and shortcomings of individual
studies. Harold insisted that it was 'my' tourney and that therefore I had to
speak the final word, but even if his own ranking would have been different in
a few places, we both like the one that is presented here, and he influenced it
greatly.
When René finally gave us the names, we discovered we had
turned down quite a few celebrities, and had awarded two newcomers, Van Essen
and Bichu, highly. The winner of the tourney, the New Zealander Emil
Melnichenko, has been a renowned study composer for over a quarter
century, winning many prizes.
This final award does not differ from the provisional
one; the claims that came in only necessitated a few minor remarks.
Studies not in the final award are at the disposal of the authors.

With a very witty sacrificial manoeuvre, which repeats itself on a neighbour
file as an echo-chameleon, White obtains successive vacating checks for two
rooks. Finally g7 is vacated by a promotion, leading to a winning rook plus
pawn vs. rook endgame.
The construction, with only 12 pieces, is perfect. The
thematical try 1.Bd7+, when a third version of White's vacating manoeuvre is
refuted by a drawing version of the rook endgame, adds to the unity. By virtue
of the echoes, this study is the culmination point of an idea that Melnichenko
had been working on for twenty years
Remarkably, the composer seems to have tried to obscure
the beauty of his masterpiece by using an obscure notation system for the
approximately 1200 moves of his, often repetitive, analysis. It took the
tourney director many hours to turn this labyrinth into a PGN-file, and the
jury to get a clear view of the path from entrance to exit.
The reward was great.

NB 16 April: As Rik van der Heiden shows, Black can last one move longer if
in the main variation after 1.Bb7+, he plays 1...Kd7(!) when White has nothing
better than 2.Rd8+ Kxc7 3.Rc8+, reverting to the position after 2.Rc8+

Second Prize: Martin van Essen (Netherlands)

Two rooks up, White is in for a ferocious sacrificial struggle to keep Black
from promoting. Both sides take part in the slugfest: Proke-manoeuvre with
double rook sacrifice on f4 by White; self-blocking bishop sacrifice on a
promotion square and unguarded guard with Novotny by Black. The black king
must undertake a Long March to f3 where his proud passed pawns only help
in the tragicomical but beautiful way in which he is mated.
The initial position, light but not too elegant,
has miraculously withstood all the computing power unleashed at it. In
those side variations, some more beautiful moves can be found.
An amazing work of art for a new composer.

Natural position; crystal clear story, governed by one theme: the prevention
of promotions. With two unguarded guards, White uses Black's ingenious
anti-promotion struggle for an even more ingenious anti-promotion manoeuvre
of his own. The paradoxical journey of the white king from a5 by c8 to d5,
to stop pawn h5, makes one think of Réti.

Brilliant final position with a triple-pin stalemate, after a baffling
rook-promotion. Play, from an initial position that looks remarkably like the
First Prize, somehow lacks unity - or perhaps we should applaud the composer
for finding an acceptable introduction to his beautiful idea at all. The fork
after 7...Bxg7+ 8.Kxg7 is a terrific joke, and it is amazing that after 7.Ng8,
Black cannot reach a winning database endgame of rook and bishop vs. two knights.

Black creates an unusual Rambling Rook that can be captured without an
immediate stalemate. With a logical and beautiful manoeuvre consisting of
several phases, White silences this rook, and wins. A nice feature is that
both moves by pawn c7 each play their very different but crucial part in
the solution.

White to play and win

1.Bf51.Bd7+ to immediately get the pawn where White wants it, doesn't work:
1...c6 2.Bf5 Rh2! 3.Rh3 Qxh3!
1...Qh7+Bd7 mate still being possible, 1...Rh2 could now be met by 2.Rh3! etc.
1...Qh7+ 2.Bxh7 Rxh7+and after a future KxR, there follows c5, and the stalemate
cannot be lifted. To win, White must force c6+ and hide at b6. The forcing
however, can only be done with the black pawn on g5, and the hiding
only makes sense without it. These considerations govern White's
manoeuvre, but there are many pitfalls.
3.Kg6!g5 being taboo, only this will lure the Rambling Rook to the south of his
king, which is necessary to force c6+
3...Rh6+3...Rg7+ boils down to the same, but after 3...c5? 4.Rc2(1) White runs
to c3 and wins much faster.
4.Kf5 Rf6+ 5.Ke4 Re6+After 5...Rf4+ 6.Kd5 White jumps to move 10.
6.Kd3 Rd6+ 7.Ke2Not 7.Kc2? Rd2+ 8.Kb1 Rb2+ 9.Kc1 c5 and the white king is boxed in.
7...Rd2+ 8.Kf3 Rf2+ 9.Ke4 Rf4+ 10.Kd5The crucial position. Without pawn g5, Black could now play
10...Rf5+, and White would not be able to make progress.
10...c6+The only move. 10...Rd4+ 11.Kc5 c6 12.Rc1 loses immediately, and
after 10...c5 11.Rc1 Rd4+ 12.Ke5 White picks up g5, runs to c3 and wins;
12...Re4+ 13.Kf5 Rf4+ 14.Kg6 Rf6+ 15.Kh5 Rh6+ 16.Kxg5 Rg6+ 17.Kf4 Rf6+ 18.Ke3
11.Ke5White cannot use the new hiding place right
away: after 11.Kc5? Rf3! draws, as the next step in the winning manoeuvre,
12.Rc2, is refuted by Rxg3 13.Kxc6 Rc3! For this rook endgame to be won, pawn g5
must vanish.
11...Re4+ 12.Kf5 Rf4+White has slower wins, Black slower losses.
13.Kg6 Rf6+ 14.Kh5 Rh6+ 15.Kxg5 Rg6+ 16.Kf4Again, White must force the rook to the south.
16...Rf6+ 17.Ke3 Re6+ 18.Kd2 Re2+And now: to the hiding place.
19.Kd3 Rd2+ 20.Ke4 Rd4+ 21.Ke5 Re4+ 22.Kd6 Re6+or Rd4+ 23.Kc5 Rd3 (23...Rxg4 24.Rgd3 Rg3 25.Kb6 c5 26.Rd5! Rxc3
27.Rxc5 Kxa3 28.Rxa5+ Kb4 29.c5) 24.Rg2 Rxc3 25.Kd4! Rxa3 26.c5 and wins.
23.Kc5 Re3or Re5+ 24.Kb6 c5 (24...Re3 25.Rb3) 25.Rc1 Re6+ 26.Kxc5 Re5+ 27.Kd4 Re4+ 28.Kc3
24.Rg2 Rxc3 25.Kd4!(25.g5? Rg3)
25...Rxa3 26.c5 and White's g4-pawn decides.

First Honourable Mention: Jan Timman (Netherlands)

A clear and wittily told adventure, in a natural position. By choosing
the right way to put a rook on d1, and sacrificing it, White sets up a
promotion fork. A second rook sacrifice on the same square leaves Black
with the wrong check.